I am surprised to read about Lim Kit Siang's challenge in malaysiakini , giving the health minister, Chua Jui Meng, 48-hours to retract "the national security threat against him".

According to Kit Siang, Chua made this threat after chairing the first meeting of the National Committee o­n Sars (severe acute respiratory syndrome). Kit Siang went o­n to postulate that Chua would incite the government to use the ISA against him and that the Home Ministry and police would make him the subject of a police crackdown.

As far as I could determine, Chua had not leveled such a threat at Kit Siang as alleged. At the meeting and at the press conference, Chua had gone to great lengths to explain the confusion among a section of the public with regards to suspected, probable, and confirmed cases of Sars.

According to the WHO case definitions, a person becomes a 'suspect case' if he presents after Feb 1, 2003 with a history of high fever (above 38 0 C), cough, shortness of breath or difficulty in breathing, and has close contact with a person who has been diagnosed with Sars or has travelled to an area in which there are reported foci of transmission of Sars within 10 days of the o­nset of symptoms.

A 'suspect case' becomes a 'probable case' if he has chest X-ray findings of pneumonia or respiratory distress syndrome. A person is also a 'probable case' if he dies with an unexplained respiratory illness and the autopsy examination demonstrates the pathology of respiratory distress syndrome without an identifiable cause.

Because the causative agent in Sars has yet to be identified, there is presently no means of confirmation and hence no 'confirmed cases'. The so-called 'Sars cases' reported by WHO and other countries actually refer to probable cases. These definitions are also the basis for the Health Ministry's daily reporting of 'suspected' and 'probable' cases.

As such, Chua warned against any non-evidence-based, over-zealousness in the reporting of 'cases' in the press and any deliberate attempts by anyone (including Kit Siang, for that matter) to blow things out of proportion. Such acts would fan public anxiety and panic, and could become a threat to national security.

In that context, Kit Siang's postulations could o­nly be seen as the acts of a desperate politician reading too much into the health minister's statements and throwing challenges in retaliation. o­nce again, Kit Siang's acts are simply attempts to gain political mileage out of disease outbreaks. They contribute nothing to disease control and public well-being.